Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAISY BUENO, individually and as Case No. 1:21-cv-00436-JLT-HBK guardian ad litem for S.B., a minor, 12 ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ Plaintiffs, STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR 13 PLAINTIFF TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED v. COMPLAINT 14 BASS LAKE JOINT UNION ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 15 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, STIPULATED MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE MINOR’S COMPROMISE 16 Defendant. (Doc. No. 83) 17 SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 DEADLINE 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Daisy Bueno, individually and as guardian ad litem 21 for S.B., a minor child, and Defendant Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District 22 (collectively “Parties”) stipulated motion for leave for Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint 23 filed on July 15, 2025. (Doc No. 83). Defendant does not object to allowing Plaintiffs leave to 24 file a First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached to the stipulated motion. (Id. at 3, 25 Doc. No. 83-1). 26 Specifically, in Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, Plaintiffs alleged the failure to provide S.B. 27 with the supports and services outlined in her individualized education plan (“IEP”) was a cause 28 in her throat to collapse requiring a special surgery to repair her throat. (Doc. No. 1). After the 1 discovery process, Plaintiffs could not connect the lack of support and services provided in the 2 educational context, to the injury suffered by S.B. (Doc. No. 83-2, ¶ 7). After meeting and 3 conferring, the Parties agreed to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to remove allegations 4 related to S.B.’s throat collapsing and to request additional time to file the Petition for Minor’s 5 Compromise.1 (Id. at ¶ 14). 6 The Parties cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) in support of permitting 7 Plaintiffs to amend. However, Rule 15 does not provide the applicable standard for evaluating 8 Plaintiffs’ motion at this stage of the litigation. After this court issued a case management 9 scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which established a timetable 10 for amending pleadings, that rule’s standards control. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 11 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992) (evaluating under Rule 16 motion for leave to amend 12 filed after issuance of pretrial scheduling order). Rule 16 provides in relevant part: 13 (b) [The district court] . . . shall, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, by a scheduling 14 conference, . . . enter a scheduling order that limits the time 15 (1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings; 16 (2) to file and hear motions; and 17 (3) to complete discovery. 18 .... The order shall issue as soon as practicable but in no event more than 19 120 days after filing of the complaint. A schedule shall not be modified except by leave of . . . [the district court] upon a showing 20 of good cause. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Thus, Plaintiffs’ ability to amend their Complaint is governed by Rule 22 16(b), not Rule 15(a). See Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C.1987) (party seeking 23 to amend pleading after date specified in scheduling order must first show “good cause” for 24 amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if “good cause” be shown, the party must demonstrate that 25 amendment was proper under Rule 15); see also Financial Holding Corp. v. Garnac Grain Co., 26 127 F.R.D. 165, 166 (W.D. Mo. 1989) (same). The Court finds Plaintiff have established good

27 1 Because S.B. was a recipient of the Medi-Cal Program, the Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”), DHCS issued a preliminary itemized statement in the amount of $2,857,197.45. (Doc. No. 83-2 at ¶ 6). Based on the 28 allegations in the initial complaint, the lien could not be released. (Id. ¶ 13). 1 | cause to amend the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 15. 2 The parties further stipulate that good cause exists for Plaintiff to be granted a 60-day 3 | extension of time to file the Petition for Minor’s Compromise. (/d.). 4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 5 1. The Parties’ stipulated motion for leave for Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint 6 | (Doc. No. 83) is GRANTED. 7 2. Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint within five (5) days from the date of 8 || this Order. 9 3. The Parties’ stipulated motion for extension of time for Plaintiffs to file the Petition for 10 | Minor’s Compromise (Doc. No. 83) 1s GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall submit a Petition for Minor’s 11 | Compromise no later than September 12, 2025. 12 Dated: __July 15, 2025 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Zaskth 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28